Pull-type agricultural implements have been utilized for various harvesting operations for many years. These implements, supported primarily by ground engaging wheels, are made in a variety of configurations, but normally include components supported on a frame. One of these components is a pivotal draft member, commonly called a drawbar or a draft tongue. For convenience, any draft member discussed in the following description will be referred to as a draft tongue.
For example, in pull-type harvesting implements, the draft tongue is pivotally mounted to the frame and is connected at the forward end to a tractor that provides both motive power and operational power to operate the crop harvesting header. The tractor also provides a source of hydraulic fluid under pressure from a conventional on-board hydraulic system carried by most modern tractors. The hydraulic fluid is needed to provide operative power for hydraulic components on the harvesting implement. The pivotal movement of the draft tongue is controlled by a hydraulic swing cylinder interconnecting the frame and the rearward portion of the draft tongue, which is powered hydraulically by the tractor. Further, hydraulic lift cylinders and hydraulic tilt cylinders, control the height and pitch of the crop harvesting header relative to the ground.
Hydraulic fluid is typically transported to and from the implement via a hydraulic conduit system that includes at least one flexible hose extending from the forward end of the draft tongue to the tractor. The flexible hoses are typically supported on a fixed support that extends forwardly and vertically from the top of the draft tongue. Various methods have been devised to support the hoses from the draft tongue and above the power-take-off driveline (PTO).
As shown in FIG. 1, one system commonly used to hold and bundle the hydraulic hoses is a vertically standing spring with a curved opening at the top (i.e., a “pig-tail”). In this design, the base of the spring 11 is fixed to the draft tongue (not shown) and the hydraulic hoses (not shown) are passed through the curved opening 13 at the opposing end of the spring. Although this design has the advantages of being simple and inexpensive, there is at least one distinct disadvantage in that because the hoses are not clamped to a surface, the hoses rub against each other and against the support during operation and transport of the implement, thereby causing premature wear of the hydraulic hoses. Furthermore, this design does not allow for any sort of arrangement of the hoses. As the number and size of the hydraulic hoses increases, the holder becomes incapable of holding all of the hoses and it becomes increasingly difficult to load and exchange the hoses. Moreover, the spring is incapable of holding the weight of numerous hoses and tends to fall over if too many hoses are inserted through the “pig-tail” opening.
Another design that has been used in the industry is illustrated in FIG. 2a. In this design, the hydraulic hoses (not shown) are clamped between a bracket 14 and stand 16, which is typically a flat piece of steel. The bracket 14 is held onto the flat piece of steel by a nut 19 and bolt 18. Although this system permits the hydraulic hoses 29 to be tightly clamped, the clamping force is applied to only a small area of the hose, which tends to deform the hose, as is shown in FIG. 2b. Furthermore, arrangement of the hoses 29 is difficult with this design because different sizes of hoses require separate clamping sections. As depicted in FIG. 2c, when two different sizes of hoses are clamped in the same section, the pressure applied to the hoses is uneven. Consequently, this design does not permit a smaller hose to be clamped under the same bracket as a larger hose. The use of steel is also disadvantageous in that it causes premature wear of the hydraulic hoses. Depending on the hardware used (e.g., nuts and bolts), changing the hoses can be a tedious, time-consuming procedure.
Formed clamping devices such as the one illustrated in FIG. 3 have also been used. In this design, curved brackets 21 are affixed to a stand 16 (e.g., a flat piece of steel) by a nut 19 and a bolt 18. The brackets 21 are preferably formed in a manner such that they fit together to provide a circular opening through which the hydraulic hoses are placed. The brackets 21 are then bolted to the stand 16. These formed clamping devices tend to clamp the hose more uniformly over a larger area of the hose circumference; however, this design still causes significant wear of the hydraulic hoses, even if the clamps are rubber-coated. Furthermore, for larger numbers of hoses, which is typical of many seeding implements, this design becomes very expensive and is therefore undesirable.
FIG. 4 illustrates another attempted design, namely a polyurethane block 23 with key-ways 26 cut into both sides of the block. The block 23 can be attached to a stand 16 mounted to the forward end of the draft tongue (not shown). A steel plate 28 is generally affixed to the block 23 on the side of the block opposing the stand 16 to hold the hoses in the key-ways. The block 23 can be mounted to the stand 16 by any conventional manner, e.g., by a nut 19 and a bolt 18. The theory behind this design is that when the hydraulic hoses are inserted into the key-ways 26, the block 23 will become stiff and clamp the hoses. However, the size of the holes cut into the block does not allow for variations in hose diameter which can be experienced between hoses from different suppliers. Furthermore, due to the different sizes of the hoses, some hoses are clamped tightly by the block while others are not. Attempting to tightly clamp the smaller hoses deforms the larger hoses in a similar fashion to that shown in FIG. 2b. Pulling on the hydraulic hoses, such as by activating the hydraulic swing cylinder and pivoting the draft tongue, e.g., swinging the farm implement to the side of the tractor, increases the bending action of the flexible hoses, causing the polyurethane block 23 to twist and bend. This severe bending action causes a crimp in the flexible hoses, which results in a constriction of the opening in the flexible hoses, an increased pressure inside the hoses, and overall wear and tear of the hydraulic hoses.
Accordingly, it is desirable to provide a hose support for hydraulic hoses carried by the tongue of a pull-type agricultural implement that overcomes the disadvantages of the prior art.